Is Vitiate a Sith Lord?

Was he ever a Dark Lord of the Sith? Did he ever stop being a Sith Lord, and if so, when did he stop being one?

He Gave Out Titles of Darth, to Malak/Revan. So I'd assume he was one technically, even though his comments to the Outlander indicate he never truly followed Sith dogma. You could say, by the time he found Valkorian, sometime after the events of Revan's Novel. His ideology, could not be applied to being Sith.

But i'm sure omniscient Fresh, can explain it more accurately.

Yes, he is a Sith Lord. Failkorion's debatable but it's downright retarded to argue that Vitiate isn't.

Originally posted by JMANGO
Was he ever a Dark Lord of the Sith? Did he ever stop being a Sith Lord, and if so, when did he stop being one?

Well, what's your criteria for Sith Lord?

YouTube video

Originally posted by XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
Well, what's your criteria for Sith Lord?

A loose one. In other words, if a quote says sidious is the most powerful DLOS, does that include vitiate ?

He was for a little time. But he saw those ways were flawed.

Originally posted by JMANGO
A loose one. In other words, if a quote says sidious is the most powerful DLOS, does that include vitiate ?

Yes, because his title is Sith. What his personal beliefs on the matter are is irrelevant. I could literally show you a quote saying Palpatine was nothing more than a mask of Sidious, but only an absolutely, mind-numbingly stupid person would say he wasn't the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic. He was still the leader of a democratic system, just as Vitiate was the leader of a Sith Empire. That's all there is to it.

The Sith are a religious movement, shmuck.

Originally posted by JMANGO
Was he ever a Dark Lord of the Sith? Did he ever stop being a Sith Lord, and if so, when did he stop being one?

He can be viewed as a Sith Lord until he reached the stage of Voices and began to wear both Sith Emperor and Immortal Emperor masks for two different Empires respectively.

Prior to Voices = YES

Voices (and later) = NO

I consider myself to be an IRL sith. That is why I'm going to law school 🙂

Vitiate was never a Darth, if that's what you mean by "Dark Lord of the Sith."

Originally posted by Azronger
Yes, because his title is Sith. What his personal beliefs on the matter are is irrelevant. I could literally show you a quote saying Palpatine was nothing more than a mask of Sidious, but only an absolutely, mind-numbingly stupid person would say he wasn't the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic. He was still the leader of a democratic system, just as Vitiate was the leader of a Sith Empire. That's all there is to it.

So you agree he stopped being a Sith when he becomes Valk. He becomes Valk before Exar Kun's death.

Originally posted by Azronger
Yes, because his title is Sith. What his personal beliefs on the matter are is irrelevant. I could literally show you a quote saying Palpatine was nothing more than a mask of Sidious, but only an absolutely, mind-numbingly stupid person would say he wasn't the Supreme Chancellor of the Republic. He was still the leader of a democratic system, just as Vitiate was the leader of a Sith Empire. That's all there is to it.

👆

Originally posted by The Ellimist
👆

LMAO, wut? If I was once a Russian, but defected to the United States, but still maintained my role in their armada as a spy, would I still be allied to the Russians?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
LMAO, wut? If I was once a Russian, but defected to the United States, but still maintained my role in their armada as a spy, would I still be allied to the Russians?

A better analogy would be that whether a certain member of Stalin's politburo really believed in communism doesn't change whether they were a member of said politburo. The question here is whether "Sith Lord" is better defined as a member of an organization or a believer in a faith. I personally think it's the former. E.g. Palpatine himself didn't really "believe" in the Sith code.

He did believe. He just had his own Rule of One. And Sithism and Jediism are religios movements. It's not the same as being a chancellor or whatsover.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
A better analogy would be that whether a certain member of Stalin's politburo really believed in communism doesn't change whether they were a member of said politburo. The question here is whether "Sith Lord" is better defined as a member of an organization or a believer in a faith. I personally think it's the former. E.g. Palpatine himself didn't really "believe" in the Sith code.

It's not a matter of him rejecting the philosophy. To quote a Senior TOR writer, "he left the Sith faction." Palpatine's allegiances remain with the sith whereas Valkoriate has ostensibly left the faction all together. The problem with your analogy is that the member of Stalin's politburo still belongs to that group, he is not a spy for the Americans.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
It's not a matter of him rejecting the philosophy. To quote a Senior TOR writer, "he left the Sith faction." Palpatine's allegiances remain with the sith whereas Valkoriate has ostensibly left the faction all together. The problem with your analogy is that the member of Stalin's politburo still belongs to that group, he is not a spy for the Americans.

I guess that's true, or at least reasonable, for Valkorion, but as of vanilla SWTOR Vitiate was very clearly aligned with the Sith.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I guess that's true, or at least reasonable, for Valkorion, but as of vanilla SWTOR Vitiate was very clearly aligned with the Sith.

Well, that is where you are wrong. I can demonstrate with 99% certainty that SWTOR Vitiate was Valkorion. In fact, so was Novel Vitaite.